The multimillion-dollar retirement accounts favored by Mitt Romney are on the outs in the new budget proposal from President Barack Obama.

The president's budget plan, expected to be introduced next week, would ban anything above $3 million in individual retirement accounts, Bloomberg reports. Because those accounts get some key tax breaks, capping them would generate about $9 billion in revenue for Uncle Sam over the next 10 years.

Obama is essentially asking people this: How much do you really need for retirement? Some wealthy people are socking away millions in these accounts, much more than they actually need, the White House said in a statement.

A White House official put it this way to Politico: Obama's proposal caps retirement accounts at an amount that would provide someone about $205,000 per year in retirement.

You could put as much as you want in your Wells Fargo (WFC) savings account or other accounts. It's just the tax-favored retirement accounts that are being scrutinized here.

As it stands, some retirement accounts are so loaded that people are using them more for estate planning. One accountant told Bloomberg that the wealthy are using retirement accounts to pass money to heirs in a tax-friendly way.

The White House isn't mentioning Romney by name, but his IRA was in the public spotlight last year. At one point, the account exceeded $100 million. Most taxpayers are limited to a $5,500 contribution for 2013, Bloomberg reports.

So far, Obama isn't saying how he plans to cap IRA amounts. The $3 million cap would apply to the total of all of a person's tax-favored retirement accounts, not a single account.

It's always better for you to decide what to do with your own hard earned money than to let someone else manage it (that included the government).

You should not be a fan of Obama's idea at all. It's not that he is limiting how much you can put in the fund, it's that he's by-passing the tax laws to force you to pay taxes at your current rate rather than the lower taxes you'll pay in the future (aka, when you retire and are living off that fixed income).

That defeats the entire purpose of putting money in the fund (that the government can't tought it until you actually use it on you when you retire). You should be able to put as much money in their as you can and not have to worry about the IRS getting it until after you start using it.

The multimillion-dollar retirement accounts favored by Mitt Romney are on the outs in the new budget proposal from President Barack Obama.

The president's budget plan, expected to be introduced next week, would ban anything above $3 million in individual retirement accounts, Bloomberg
reports. Because those accounts get some key tax breaks, capping them would generate about $9 billion in revenue for Uncle Sam over the next 10 years.

Obama is essentially asking people this: How much do you really need for retirement? Some wealthy people are socking away millions in these accounts, much more than they actually need, the White House said in a statement.

A White House official put it this way to
Politico: Obama's proposal caps retirement accounts at an amount that would provide someone about $205,000 per year in retirement.

You could put as much as you want in your
Wells Fargo (
WFC) savings account or other accounts. It's just the tax-favored retirement accounts that are being scrutinized here.

As it stands, some retirement accounts are so loaded that people are using them more for estate planning. One accountant told Bloomberg that the wealthy are using retirement accounts to pass money to heirs in a tax-friendly way.

The White House isn't mentioning Romney by name, but his IRA was in the public spotlight last year. At one point, the account exceeded $100 million. Most taxpayers are limited to a $5,500 contribution for 2013, Bloomberg reports.

So far, Obama isn't saying how he plans to cap IRA amounts. The $3 million cap would apply to the total of all of a person's tax-favored retirement accounts, not a single account.

Couple of thoughts.

If you know a financial planner that can throw off 205,000 from 3 million reliably, that person has superpowers and likely does not need your retirement money to secure his/her own retirement. Everything I hear is that 4% is a more typical number, or about 120,000. In today's environment, a secure return is likely much lower.

This year, the limit is 3 mil. Future years? Who knows. Maybe the government needs a little more to fund food stamps, so the limit goes to 1 mil.

This law doesn't limit the super rich, they can move their money at will and have people watching these things. What this does is it lays down a marker for going after the IRA's of the less wealthy.

Precisely the type of tax avoidance loophole that should be closed. May he close many more.

How is it a loophole?

I see it as a straight-up subsidy to the poor.

Because in order for an IRA to become more than $3,000,000 it would have to be used as a tax avoidance tool rather than a retirement account as the writers of the law intended.

And you see EVERYTHING as a subsidy to the poor.

Not true. Invest 20% of your income over your life, and 3 million is attainable for many people. To get to a million only takes around $10K per year over 30 years, that's if Obama doesn't run you out of the workforce early.

And, if you have a government pension, of say, 70-80K, that's the equivalent of a two million dollar retirement account.

I think there is a dearth of interest in this from the progressives. I wonder if that is because they have pensions while the rest of us only have IRA's.

Heck, they probably figure they stand to gain from taking our IRA's from us.

Lots of ass-umptions and ass-ertions here...

Personally, I don't plan on having that much in an IRA for retirement...because I have no plans to retire. Ever.

I'm a New Englander. I'll keep working until I croak.

Screw that...can't wait to retire. What I do with my money is my business. How much I need is also my business and not Obama's or any other scumb@g politician. Just sayin : )

Have fun. Like golf much...? ;)

Good question though...how much does anyone really need to "retire" with? How many years of retirement is the average? If one is very healthy, should they save more because they'll live longer? Is 25-30 years of "retirement" out of the question...? I've heard 1.5, 2 million is the baseline, but I'm not so sure.

Lots of ordinary, hard-working americans had their 401ks and home equity decimated. What happened before could happen again - with or without proper oversight. A lot of people still exhibit major trust issues with the financial industry.

I once thought I would want to retire early, but I like working and being busy. Fortunately, my skills and occupation can serve me well into my 70s, if necessary.

It's a stupid bill because when withdrawing money from an IRA it is taxed at income rates. If a person dies with an IRA, the IRA is taxed at inheriter's tax rate. There is NO TAX savings for estate planning with IRAs. Totally erroneous info.

But it's not "class warfare" when hard-working people lose their house and retirement in the wealthy person's shell game known as the markets.

I'm not "class warfaring" anybody. It is you that runs every idea through your class warfare filter.

You have no understanding of the contributions made by the hated rich. you wouldn't even have a job if it wasn't for some rich guy putting his money on the line to make a business, make it grow.

For you, it's all about bashing the hand that feeds you. I can only hope that what ever issue causes you to hate people who are successful gets worked out, so yuo don't have to carry this hate around for the rest of your life.

But it's not "class warfare" when hard-working people lose their house and retirement in the wealthy person's shell game known as the markets.

I'm not "class warfaring" anybody. It is you that runs every idea through your class warfare filter.

You have no understanding of the contributions made by the hated rich. you wouldn't even have a job if it wasn't for some rich guy putting his money on the line to make a business, make it grow.

For you, it's all about bashing the hand that feeds you. I can only hope that what ever issue causes you to hate people who are successful gets worked out, so yuo don't have to carry this hate around for the rest of your life.

I don't hate the rich.

I hate swindlers, chiselers and cheats. "Getting away with it" never justifies the infraction nor the poor saps who get trampled in the process.

There's nothing wrong with rewarding hard work and innovation, but it's not always clear that the rewards are commensurate, much less honorable or ethical.

If I truly thought that my company's founders and leadership hadn't earned their relative fortunes, I would tell them so...or at least not lower myself to work for them. As it happens, I've both earned my rewards and helped make them richer. Believe me, the gratitude is mutual.